alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K/A for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn L. Cooper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /S/ GLENN L. COOPER    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer

January 26, 2009
Consent of Geo. S. Olive & Co. LLC

We consent to the incorporation by reference into this Annual Report on Form 
10-K of our report dated February 3, 1997 with respect to the consolidated 
financial statements of Central Newspapers, Inc., for the year ended December 
29, 1996, included in the Central Newspapers, Inc. Annual Report to Shareholders
and to the incorporation of such report by reference into (a) the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (File Numbers 33-37566, 33-40776 and 33-61397) and 
related Prospectus pertaining to the Central Newspapers, Inc. Stock 
Compensation Plan (formerly Central Newspapers, Inc. Stock Option Plan) and (b) 
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (file Number 33-33026) and related 
Prospectus pertaining to the Central Newspapers, Inc. Savings Plus Plan.


/s/ Geo. S. Olive & Co. LLC 
----------------------------
Geo. S. Olive & Co. LLC
Indianapolis, Indiana
March 13, 1998
TERRA NITROGEN COMPANY, L.P.

Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. (the Company) for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen R. Wilson, President of Terra Nitrogen GP Inc., the general
partner of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:



/s/ STEPHEN R. WILSON Stephen R. Wilson President and Chief Executive Officer,
Chairman of the Board of Terra Nitrogen GP Inc.,
general partner of Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.
(Principal Executive Officer)


Dated:
August 6, 2010

36

---



QuickLinks
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

128416 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver (53) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, SHARON DONOHU E and KEVIN DONOHUE, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 128416 COA: 249700 Oakland CC: 02-041818-NZ INTERMODAL TR ANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of December 9, 2005 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.

l0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 10.81

 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO
 2009 SEVERANCE PLAN

 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT to the Innoviva, Inc. (the “Corporation”) 2009 Severance Plan, as amended (the “Plan”) is made effective as of May 18, 2018 (the “Effective Date”).

 

WHEREAS, the Corporation maintains the Plan;

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III, Section 6 of the Plan, the Corporation’s Board of Directors or Compensation Committee may amend the Plan at any time;

 

WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to amend the definition of “Eligible Executive” to exclude officers hired on or after the Effective Date or employees promoted to an officer level position on or after the Effective Date; and

 

WHEREAS, capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.             Eligibility Requirements:  In addition to the all of the other eligibility requirements set forth in Article I of the Plan, to be an Eligible Employee for severance benefits under the Plan the officer may not have been (a) hired on or after the Effective Date or (b) promoted to an officer level position on or after the Effective Date.

 

2.             Except as amended herein, all of the terms of the Plan shall remain and continue in full force and effect.
26642

#### Sugarman v. Bews

Vacated and Remanded
June 10, 2010 

Mr. John Kenny 

Director of Operations 

Center for Emergency Medicine of Western Pennsylvania, Inc. 

 d.b.a, STAT MedEvac 

10 Allegheny County Airport 

West Mifflin, PA 15122 

Dear Mr. Kenny: 

We have received your May 13, 2010, correspondence withdrawing your April 12, 2010, 

petition on behalf of Center for Emergency Medicine of Western Pennsylvania, Inc. d.b.a. 

STAT MedEvac for an exemption from §§ 135.213(a) and (b), 135.219, and 135.225(a)(1) 

and (2), (f), and (g) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Your letter has been placed in the public docket (No. FAA-2008-0811). No further action 

will be taken on your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division
Exhibit 31.3 CERTIFICATION

I,
Govindarajan Sankar, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Global Aircraft Solutions,
Inc.

2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

6. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:
April 15, 2007

| | /s/ Govindarajan Sankar Govindarajan Sankar,Chief
Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.22



            [DUDLEY, HOPTON-JONES, SIMS & FREEMAN PLLP LETTERHEAD]




Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549


Gentlemen:

We were previously principal accountants for First American Bancorp and on
January 12, 1996, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of First
American Bancorp and Subsidiary as of and for the two years ended December 31,
1995.  On August 27, 1996, we were dismissed as principal accountants of First
American Bancorp.  We have read First American Bancorp's statements included
under Item 4 of its Form 8-K for August 28, 1996, and we agree with such
statements.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 /s/ DUDLEY, HOPTON-JONES, SIMS & FREEMAN PLLP
                                 ---------------------------------------------
                                     DUDLEY, HOPTON-JONES, SIMS & FREEMAN PLLP
                                            Certified Public Accountants



Birmingham, Alabama
August 28, 1996



    ASSOCIATED OFFICES IN PRINCIPAL CITIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
#### Jerry A. ROYAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-75-409.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 22, 1975.

Burke Mordy, Ardmore, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Kay Karen Kennedy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Appellant, Jerry A. Royal, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Carter County, Case No. CRF-74-209, for the offense of Larceny of Automobile, After Former Conviction of Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, §§51 and 1720. The jury fixed his punishment at ten (10) years’ imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence an appeal has been lodged with this Court.

In behalf of the State, this Court has been duly presented with a Motion to Dismiss this purported appeal for failure to comply with Rules 2.7, subd. A and 2.8, subd. A, 22 O.S.Supp.1974, Ch. 18, App., and upon the additional basis, supported by affidavit, that while committed to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections under the above judgment and sentence and incarcerated at the Lexington Regional Treatment Center the defendant escaped custody on July 26, 1975, and remains at large. We need only observe that this Court has long held that an appeal from a conviction will be dismissed where the accused is a fugitive from justice, or otherwise beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. See, *Tyler v. State,*3 Okl.Cr. 179, 104 P. 919 (1909); *Winters v. State,*31 Okl.Cr. 280, 238 P. 506 (1925); *Barnard v. State,*32 Okl.Cr. 395, 241 P. 199 (1925); *Exline v. State,*48 Okl.Cr. 181, 290 P. 349 (1930), and, *Brinlee v. State,*Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 343 (1973). Also see, *United States v. Swigart,*490 F.2d 914 (10th Cir. 1973), and *Molinaro v. New Jersey,*396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970).

We are therefore of the opinion that defendant’s appeal from the aforesaid conviction should be dismissed, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the Mandate forthwith.

It is so ordered.

BRETT, P. J., and BLISS, J., concur.
P.1 

OAR Box 1878 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

137) ll-B-50 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/2008 1:21:26 PM Sheet 137 of 145 
P.2 

A-90-19 

ll-B-50 

PENDING CONFIDENTIAL 

« 

E G g t) V g 

SEP 1 1992 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

The following information is located in the confidential 

files of the Director, Emission Standards Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. This 

information is confidential pending final determination by the 

Administrator and is not available for public inspection. 

W. Floyd, Radian Corporation, to Process Vents Docket 

A-90-19, December 1990, HON NESHAP: Industry 

Characteristics/Ethylcellulose. 28 pages. 

CBI Document Control No. 86/23, PPS-50.
118 P.3d 71

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

August 26, 2005

26111

#### State v. Abordo

Affirmed
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 17, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

131498 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. SUZANNE VERBRUGGHE, as Stephen J. Markman, Personal Representative of the Justices Estate of George Verbrugghe, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131498 COA: 263686 Macomb CC: 04-004423-NH SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL – MACOMB COUNTY, INC., Defendant-Appellee,

and

ARSENIO V. DeLEON, M.D., and MARIUS LAURINAITIS, M.D., Defendants-Appellants,

and

JAVED ZIA, M.D., Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of November 1, 2006, the app lication for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Washington v Sinai Hosp ital of Greater Detroit (Docket No. 130641). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on June 27, 2007, 478 Mich 412 (2007), the application is again considered and, it ap pearing to this Court that the case of Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445- 134446) is pending on appeal before this
Court and that the decision in that case ma y resolve an issue ra ised in the present application for leave to app eal, we ORDER that the applic ation be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.

l1010 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 17, 2007

Clerk
May 20, 1999

21406

#### State v. Kimi

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Dog Imports: Check Country Disease

Status

Last Modified: 

Print

Rabies Alert

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has extended its temporary

suspension on importing dogs from high-risk rabies countries through July 31, 2024.

For more details, visit the CDC.

If you have questions about CDC requirements, contact CDC-INFO or call them at

404-718-3660.

APHIS Veterinary Services, along with the CDC, has specific requirements for dogs

traveling (imported) to the United States from countries affected by particular

diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), screwworm, and rabies.

For dog(s) coming from...

FMD-affected countries (not free), follow the APHIS Veterinary Services import

requirements.

Screwworm-affected countries (not free), follow the APHIS Veterinary Services

import requirements.
Rabies-affected countries (not free), review CDC dog importation regulations .

Loading...

Check Disease Status for Country of Origin
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 10758 Summary Calendar

**____________ Robert Kreb,**  Plaintiff

— Appellant **,** versus **Integra Aviation, L.L.C.,** doing business as **Apollo Med Flight; Apollo Med Flight, L.L.C.; Panavia Air Taxi,**  **L.L.C.,** doing business as **Haven Aero, L.L.C.; Haven Aero, L.L.C.; Flight Mechanix, L.L.C.; Young Firm, P.C.; Lee**  **McCamm on,**  Corporate Officer of Apollo **; Thomas L. Klassen,** Director of Operations **; Joseph H. Belsha, III,** Chief Pilot **; Whitney Smith,**  Vice President of Human Resources **; Travis Lamance,** Director of Maintenance **; Jeremi K. Young; Secretary,** United States Department of Labor **,** Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:23

- CV

- 88

**______________________________** Before **Smith ,**  **Higginson ,**  and **Engelhardt ,**  Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *****

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 29, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10758 Document: 00517016474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2023No. 23

- 10758

2 Robert Kreb, a pilot, was fired by Integra Aviation after his repeated reports that his flight operation assignments did not comply with federal avi

a tion regulations. He sued, pro se , various private parties and the Secretary of Labor, claiming violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, and assert

ing libel, defamation, and sl ander under state law. Those claims were also pend ing before the Department of Labor. Kreb sought a temporary restrain

ing order to enjoin the DOL from initiating a review of his claims by an admin

istrative law judge.
In a five

- page order issued June 21, 2023, the district court denied the TRO and dismissed the action, without prejudice, for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm that dismissal, essentially for the reasons assigned by the district court. That court properly determined that t he Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize judicial interference with an agency action that is not “final.” The court distinguished Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC , 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023), because it involved a structural, constitutional claim, which Kreb’s suit does not. The district court also observed that the claims related to the

non
- federal defendants “are not yet fit for adjudication in federal court. ” And the court noted that the suit includes non

- diverse parties. As carefully explained by t he district court, the dismissal without pre

ju dice is correct and is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-10758 Document: 00517016474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2023
115 P.3d 707

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Feliciano

26418

07/14/2005

Affirmed
18683

#### State v. Nguyen

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 99.b



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Chief Financial Officer of C&M Management Inc. and Director of Accounting of Boston Capital Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                       
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                 
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Fund.



|                | Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P.
|--------------- | ---------------------------------------
|                |                                        
|                | By:                                    
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|                | By:                                    
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|                | By:                                    
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|Date:           |                                        
|August 20, 2003 | By:                                    
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|                |
#### The State, ex rel. The Inland Properties Co. et al., *v.*Court of Appeals of the Eighth Appellate District oe Ohio et al.

(No. 31627

Decided March 16, 1949.)

*176
      *Mr. Ralph L. Ammerman*and *Mr. John L. Maxwell,*for relators.

*Mr. Saul S. Danaceau*and *Mr. Harold O. Ziegler,*for respondents.

Bx the Court.

Counsel filing the present petition in this court admitted in oral argument that motions had been filed in the Court of Appeals to expunge and obliterate the three entries appearing on the journal of that court, which motions were overruled, and that no appeals from such overruling were attempted. Such an admission by counsel is binding on a party.

Becapitulating, first, the petition alleges appeals were taken to this court to review the judgments which this proceeding in mandamus seeks to expunge and, second, no appeals were attempted from the overruling of the motions to expunge the three entries from the journal of the Court of Appeals.

Where a plain and adequate remedy at law has been unsuccessfully invoked, the extraordinary writ of mandamus will not lie either to relitigate the same question or as a substitute for appeal. *State, ex rel. Stanley,*v. *Cook, Supt.,*146 Ohio St., 348, 66 N. E. (2d), 207, paragraphs 5 and 9 of the syllabus; 25 Ohio Jurisprudence, 1013, Section 34, and cases cited; *State, ex*
      *177
      *rel. Dunphy,*v. *Graham, Judge,*146 Ohio St., 547, 67 N. E. (2d), 321.

A judgment rendered by an inferior court may not be collaterally attacked by a proceeding in mandamus. 23 Ohio Jurisprudence, 1146, Section 1003; *State, ex rel. Walke,*v. *Industrial Commission,*140 Ohio St., 311, 313, 43 N. E. (2d), 282; *State, ex rel. Barner,*v. *Marsh, Clerk,*121 Ohio St., 321, 168 N. E., 473.

It may also be noted that the three corporations having been dissolved by judgments which are valid and unreversed, the named relators are not qualified to maintain the present proceeding in mandamus.

The demurrer to the petition is sustained and writ denied.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
26432

#### Gunderson v. Shaw

Affirmed